Pokerman, I don't understand the point. How is trying to argue that most drivers who promoted were backed by F1 teams, going to prove that there were too many?

Drivers "could" avoid each other. Sure. But at least drivers had a far cheaper option to run top level series and try to get noticed. The point has been given before, take away FR3.5 and you just keep a terribly expensive F2 series. How is that supposed to help the likes of Frijns? It won't. All it means is that there now will be even less good seats at top level, and the drivers without huge budgets stand even less of a chance of landing a good one.

But in the end, refute this: we had two series, both were healthy, so both could exist just fine. Economically that is the entire proof there weren't too many series.

I find it sad to see diversity gone and series like FR 3.5 and Euro F3 effectively destroyed. They provided excellent motor racing. And, to add to your reasoning that I wholehertedly support, they provided accessibly monoposto racing for the fans - outside expensive F1 weekends and on accessible circuits at accessible times.

A really sad development.

I did some quick research, FR3.5, F3 and GP3 cost virtually the same to compete in so why all the angst?

Pokerman, I don't understand the point. How is trying to argue that most drivers who promoted were backed by F1 teams, going to prove that there were too many?

Drivers "could" avoid each other. Sure. But at least drivers had a far cheaper option to run top level series and try to get noticed. The point has been given before, take away FR3.5 and you just keep a terribly expensive F2 series. How is that supposed to help the likes of Frijns? It won't. All it means is that there now will be even less good seats at top level, and the drivers without huge budgets stand even less of a chance of landing a good one.

But in the end, refute this: we had two series, both were healthy, so both could exist just fine. Economically that is the entire proof there weren't too many series.

I find it sad to see diversity gone and series like FR 3.5 and Euro F3 effectively destroyed. They provided excellent motor racing. And, to add to your reasoning that I wholehertedly support, they provided accessibly monoposto racing for the fans - outside expensive F1 weekends and on accessible circuits at accessible times.

A really sad development.

I did some quick research, FR3.5, F3 and GP3 cost virtually the same to compete in so why all the angst?

The cost of FR3.5 was a lot less than GP2 and the cost of F3 are currently quite a bit less than GP3. Enough to make a difference anyway.

You're trying to make it sound like FR3.5 stood head and shoulders with GP2 which it didn't, also do you have figures, I've seen £600K for GP3 and €700K for F3.

Pokerman, I don't understand the point. How is trying to argue that most drivers who promoted were backed by F1 teams, going to prove that there were too many?

Drivers "could" avoid each other. Sure. But at least drivers had a far cheaper option to run top level series and try to get noticed. The point has been given before, take away FR3.5 and you just keep a terribly expensive F2 series. How is that supposed to help the likes of Frijns? It won't. All it means is that there now will be even less good seats at top level, and the drivers without huge budgets stand even less of a chance of landing a good one.

But in the end, refute this: we had two series, both were healthy, so both could exist just fine. Economically that is the entire proof there weren't too many series.

I find it sad to see diversity gone and series like FR 3.5 and Euro F3 effectively destroyed. They provided excellent motor racing. And, to add to your reasoning that I wholehertedly support, they provided accessibly monoposto racing for the fans - outside expensive F1 weekends and on accessible circuits at accessible times.

A really sad development.

I did some quick research, FR3.5, F3 and GP3 cost virtually the same to compete in so why all the angst?

The cost of FR3.5 was a lot less than GP2 and the cost of F3 are currently quite a bit less than GP3. Enough to make a difference anyway.

You're trying to make it sound like FR3.5 stood head and shoulders with GP2 which it didn't, also do you have figures, I've seen £600K for GP3 and €700K for F3.

First off, both of those numbers are already way too high for anyone who isn't sponsored or independently wealthy to compete in.

Secondly, it's basic economics that the cost will go up when the number of seats goes down. Let's say right now there's 40 seats available and they cost $600,000 to get. Eliminate half those seats, and you've got 20 people who can afford seats, want seats, and can't get seats. The people who own those seats (the racing teams, in this case) know that the supply for the seats just went down while the demand didn't change, hence their seats have become more valuable: they can charge more for them, and with no competing racing series, sponsors and drivers will have no choice but to pay.

Bottom line, drivers don't just pay for the running costs of the car, they pay to outbid everyone else who wants their seat. With less seats and the same number of drivers, they're going to have to pay more to be one of the high bidders. Now maybe Brawn has a wonderfully fair system dreamed up to stop that from happening, but I'll have to see that to believe it.

Pokerman, I don't understand the point. How is trying to argue that most drivers who promoted were backed by F1 teams, going to prove that there were too many?

Drivers "could" avoid each other. Sure. But at least drivers had a far cheaper option to run top level series and try to get noticed. The point has been given before, take away FR3.5 and you just keep a terribly expensive F2 series. How is that supposed to help the likes of Frijns? It won't. All it means is that there now will be even less good seats at top level, and the drivers without huge budgets stand even less of a chance of landing a good one.

But in the end, refute this: we had two series, both were healthy, so both could exist just fine. Economically that is the entire proof there weren't too many series.

I find it sad to see diversity gone and series like FR 3.5 and Euro F3 effectively destroyed. They provided excellent motor racing. And, to add to your reasoning that I wholehertedly support, they provided accessibly monoposto racing for the fans - outside expensive F1 weekends and on accessible circuits at accessible times.

A really sad development.

I did some quick research, FR3.5, F3 and GP3 cost virtually the same to compete in so why all the angst?

How does that relate to what I wrote?I am confused ...

You went around Europe watching FR3.5 and F3?

Virtually every F3 Euro event and over the years many FR 3.5, yes. But that is not the point.

Both series represented accessible and affordable monoposto racing around Europe - something that GP2 and GP3 don't. Part of the fascination of motor racing is having races in your area (broadley) at affordable prices and accessible time schedules. This is also drawing new fans in. Now, if virtually every monoposto series outside the super expensive and very restricted F1 bill is dead that is a loss for the fans IMO. In addition to what mds, exidiron and mikey rightfully argue.

The cost of FR3.5 was a lot less than GP2 and the cost of F3 are currently quite a bit less than GP3. Enough to make a difference anyway.

You're trying to make it sound like FR3.5 stood head and shoulders with GP2 which it didn't, also do you have figures, I've seen £600K for GP3 and €700K for F3.

First off, both of those numbers are already way too high for anyone who isn't sponsored or independently wealthy to compete in.

Secondly, it's basic economics that the cost will go up when the number of seats goes down. Let's say right now there's 40 seats available and they cost $600,000 to get. Eliminate half those seats, and you've got 20 people who can afford seats, want seats, and can't get seats. The people who own those seats (the racing teams, in this case) know that the supply for the seats just went down while the demand didn't change, hence their seats have become more valuable: they can charge more for them, and with no competing racing series, sponsors and drivers will have no choice but to pay.

Bottom line, drivers don't just pay for the running costs of the car, they pay to outbid everyone else who wants their seat. With less seats and the same number of drivers, they're going to have to pay more to be one of the high bidders. Now maybe Brawn has a wonderfully fair system dreamed up to stop that from happening, but I'll have to see that to believe it.

First of all you are guessing that the costs will go up, it was only last season that there were concerns about the costs in F3.

I find it sad to see diversity gone and series like FR 3.5 and Euro F3 effectively destroyed. They provided excellent motor racing. And, to add to your reasoning that I wholehertedly support, they provided accessibly monoposto racing for the fans - outside expensive F1 weekends and on accessible circuits at accessible times.

A really sad development.

I did some quick research, FR3.5, F3 and GP3 cost virtually the same to compete in so why all the angst?

How does that relate to what I wrote?I am confused ...

You went around Europe watching FR3.5 and F3?

Virtually every F3 Euro event and over the years many FR 3.5, yes. But that is not the point.

Both series represented accessible and affordable monoposto racing around Europe - something that GP2 and GP3 don't. Part of the fascination of motor racing is having races in your area (broadley) at affordable prices and accessible time schedules. This is also drawing new fans in. Now, if virtually every monoposto series outside the super expensive and very restricted F1 bill is dead that is a loss for the fans IMO. In addition to what mds, exidiron and mikey rightfully argue.

It's a loss for spectators, how many spectate and are they stand alone events or support races?

If the stated reason for Ticktum chosing Euro F3 over GP3 for 2018 - see respective autosport.com article - is true, another reason for more variety in feeder categories surfaces: apparently, he cannot do GP3 because he has Red Bull simulator duties on F1 race weekends ...

Virtually every F3 Euro event and over the years many FR 3.5, yes. But that is not the point.

Both series represented accessible and affordable monoposto racing around Europe - something that GP2 and GP3 don't. Part of the fascination of motor racing is having races in your area (broadley) at affordable prices and accessible time schedules. This is also drawing new fans in. Now, if virtually every monoposto series outside the super expensive and very restricted F1 bill is dead that is a loss for the fans IMO. In addition to what mds, exidiron and mikey rightfully argue.

It's a loss for spectators, how many spectate and are they stand alone events or support races?

The World Series events offered a weekend full of racing comprised of FR1.6, FR2.0, FR3.5, Clio Cup, Megane Trophy, R.S. 01 cup (not all every single year and/or event) at very low cost or even free. I attended the Zolder and Spa events multiple times, there were huge crowds and it was fantastic.

If the stated reason for Ticktum chosing Euro F3 over GP3 for 2018 - see respective autosport.com article - is true, another reason for more variety in feeder categories surfaces: apparently, he cannot do GP3 because he has Red Bull simulator duties on F1 race weekends ...

I don't think that would be a deal breaker if there was no other option?

Virtually every F3 Euro event and over the years many FR 3.5, yes. But that is not the point.

Both series represented accessible and affordable monoposto racing around Europe - something that GP2 and GP3 don't. Part of the fascination of motor racing is having races in your area (broadley) at affordable prices and accessible time schedules. This is also drawing new fans in. Now, if virtually every monoposto series outside the super expensive and very restricted F1 bill is dead that is a loss for the fans IMO. In addition to what mds, exidiron and mikey rightfully argue.

It's a loss for spectators, how many spectate and are they stand alone events or support races?

The World Series events offered a weekend full of racing comprised of FR1.6, FR2.0, FR3.5, Clio Cup, Megane Trophy, R.S. 01 cup (not all every single year and/or event) at very low cost or even free. I attended the Zolder and Spa events multiple times, there were huge crowds and it was fantastic.

Of course it's a loss for spectators. How could one even debate this?

So it's not a stand alone event but has plenty of filler events that appease a variety of fans, was FR3.5 really worth watching this season, did they still get the same amount of fans?

Virtually every F3 Euro event and over the years many FR 3.5, yes. But that is not the point.

Both series represented accessible and affordable monoposto racing around Europe - something that GP2 and GP3 don't. Part of the fascination of motor racing is having races in your area (broadley) at affordable prices and accessible time schedules. This is also drawing new fans in. Now, if virtually every monoposto series outside the super expensive and very restricted F1 bill is dead that is a loss for the fans IMO. In addition to what mds, exidiron and mikey rightfully argue.

It's a loss for spectators, how many spectate and are they stand alone events or support races?

The World Series events offered a weekend full of racing comprised of FR1.6, FR2.0, FR3.5, Clio Cup, Megane Trophy, R.S. 01 cup (not all every single year and/or event) at very low cost or even free. I attended the Zolder and Spa events multiple times, there were huge crowds and it was fantastic.

Ross Brawn wants a structured ladder were F2 is the last step before F1 and the best will be given seats in F1, he wants drivers to go up the ladder based on talent alone and I believe in that respect that drivers will be helped, a future Frijns doesn't win 3 titles on the bounce and then basically his career stalls.

I don't understand how in fragmented series were drivers basically avoid one another how you determine who are the best drivers, the only FR3.5 drivers that went to F1 were already backed by F1 teams in the first place, the ones that weren't like your Wickens and Frijns they found out that winning the title meant very little to F1 teams and their future single seater career.

It's a pipe dream, and it will never happen. How is he going to make the teams take the best drivers? Just because the best maybe end up in F2 (and I'm not sure that will happen), nothing is making teams take them.

If anything, I think having this single path to F1 will make F2 seats more expensive and harder to come by for good drivers on a low budget.

Yes. F2 will always be doomed. If someone is good driver, there is good chance she/he will get some serious backing and sponsors would rather skip F2 in favour of F1 if F2 is very expensive. We need mutliple cheap series. Beside that points need to be based on how quick the cars and the drivers in some series are, because this all about drivers getting used to racing in very quick cars. If this is all about promoting some FIA series it doesn't make much sense and nobody should be surpised that F1 teams try to game current system.

But hey, y'all asked for supelicence reforms because Verstappen is going to be "so dangerous" in an F1 car.

And what do you know, he was. It's a matter of opinion whether his age had anything to do with it, but he definitely went through a period of dangerous driving in 2016, and he still shows glimpses of it every now and then.

But hey, y'all asked for supelicence reforms because Verstappen is going to be "so dangerous" in an F1 car.

And what do you know, he was. It's a matter of opinion whether his age had anything to do with it, but he definitely went through a period of dangerous driving in 2016, and he still shows glimpses of it every now and then.

Virtually every 'new to F1' driver has been dangerous - be they 16 -26 or 36 in their first year.

A question for Pokerman: What is bad about drivers having FR3.5 as a competitive series, what harm did it do?

It wasn't a route into F1 for drivers who couldn't afford to get into F1 in the first place so what was the point of it, being Champion did nothing for either Wickens or Frijns, so for me it just fragmented the drivers.

As for the spectator side of it did FR3.5 really pull in big crowds on its own merit, I remember watching British F3 in it's hey day along with one man and his dog, the only time I saw decent crowds was when it was a support event.

Ross Brawn wants a structured ladder were F2 is the last step before F1 and the best will be given seats in F1, he wants drivers to go up the ladder based on talent alone and I believe in that respect that drivers will be helped, a future Frijns doesn't win 3 titles on the bounce and then basically his career stalls.

I don't understand how in fragmented series were drivers basically avoid one another how you determine who are the best drivers, the only FR3.5 drivers that went to F1 were already backed by F1 teams in the first place, the ones that weren't like your Wickens and Frijns they found out that winning the title meant very little to F1 teams and their future single seater career.

It's a pipe dream, and it will never happen. How is he going to make the teams take the best drivers? Just because the best maybe end up in F2 (and I'm not sure that will happen), nothing is making teams take them.

If anything, I think having this single path to F1 will make F2 seats more expensive and harder to come by for good drivers on a low budget.

Yes. F2 will always be doomed. If someone is good driver, there is good chance she/he will get some serious backing and sponsors would rather skip F2 in favour of F1 if F2 is very expensive. We need mutliple cheap series. Beside that points need to be based on how quick the cars and the drivers in some series are, because this all about drivers getting used to racing in very quick cars. If this is all about promoting some FIA series it doesn't make much sense and nobody should be surpised that F1 teams try to game current system.

Whereas Brawn has said that the doorway to F1 in the future will be only be through F2.

But hey, y'all asked for supelicence reforms because Verstappen is going to be "so dangerous" in an F1 car.

And what do you know, he was. It's a matter of opinion whether his age had anything to do with it, but he definitely went through a period of dangerous driving in 2016, and he still shows glimpses of it every now and then.

Virtually every 'new to F1' driver has been dangerous - be they 16 -26 or 36 in their first year.

A question for Pokerman: What is bad about drivers having FR3.5 as a competitive series, what harm did it do?

It wasn't a route into F1 for drivers who couldn't afford to get into F1 in the first place so what was the point of it, being Champion did nothing for either Wickens or Frijns, so for me it just fragmented the drivers.

As for the spectator side of it did FR3.5 really pull in big crowds on its own merit, I remember watching British F3 in it's hey day along with one man and his dog, the only time I saw decent crowds was when it was a support event.

How do you know it did nothing for them?

It did nothing for them in terms of F1 but both have gone on to have careers in motorsport. Would they have if they had to stop after F4 because they ran out of money? More to motorsport than F1.

Ross Brawn wants a structured ladder were F2 is the last step before F1 and the best will be given seats in F1, he wants drivers to go up the ladder based on talent alone and I believe in that respect that drivers will be helped, a future Frijns doesn't win 3 titles on the bounce and then basically his career stalls.

I don't understand how in fragmented series were drivers basically avoid one another how you determine who are the best drivers, the only FR3.5 drivers that went to F1 were already backed by F1 teams in the first place, the ones that weren't like your Wickens and Frijns they found out that winning the title meant very little to F1 teams and their future single seater career.

It's a pipe dream, and it will never happen. How is he going to make the teams take the best drivers? Just because the best maybe end up in F2 (and I'm not sure that will happen), nothing is making teams take them.

If anything, I think having this single path to F1 will make F2 seats more expensive and harder to come by for good drivers on a low budget.

Yes. F2 will always be doomed. If someone is good driver, there is good chance she/he will get some serious backing and sponsors would rather skip F2 in favour of F1 if F2 is very expensive. We need mutliple cheap series. Beside that points need to be based on how quick the cars and the drivers in some series are, because this all about drivers getting used to racing in very quick cars. If this is all about promoting some FIA series it doesn't make much sense and nobody should be surpised that F1 teams try to game current system.

Whereas Brawn has said that the doorway to F1 in the future will be only be through F2.

Great plan. It's junior driver for a big team or bust then in future for young talents that aren't privately backed.

As for the spectator side of it did FR3.5 really pull in big crowds on its own merit, I remember watching British F3 in it's hey day along with one man and his dog, the only time I saw decent crowds was when it was a support event.

Well, FR 3.5 has not done worse in producing F1 racers than GP2, so that isn't really an argument for one or the other series. Certainly, more talents have made their skills noticed/recognized in Euro F3 than in GP3.

But at least for my point of view this is misleading anyway:1. FR 3.5 and Euro F3 were/are delivering great motor racing, so for me as a fan it is a loss seeing them go.2. As feeder catergories they "feeded" many categories, not only F1 and provided opportunities for young drivers to make a living out of motor racing. F4 will not do the job and GP2/3 are too expensive and too F1 focused to serve the needs for other avenues of professional racing.3. I generally disklike monoculture - of tracks, teams, career pathways, you name it. With feeders solely on F1 bill, motor racing is becoming less interesting and less attractive.4. I hear Brawn's words but I cannot see how the most expensive series (GP2/3) with the least competitive formats (reversed grids, gimmicks, etc.) improve the selection of real talent. So, the words are not enough for me. Quite in contrast, I smell a ladder where the more marketable drivers can be promoted into F1, at the expense of talent if necessary. Of course, I may be wrong.5. It is a loss to live spectators all around Europe and it further reduces the chance of attracting newer, younger audiences to live racing.

Revisions to the Formula One super licence rules will make it harder for drivers who have not participated in Formula Two to take part in practice sessions.

From the 2018 F1 season new free practice super licences will only be issued to drivers who have done either six Formula Two events or gathered 25 superlicence points during the previous three years.

Thoughts? It seems awfully pointless to me. If they want to restrict the ability of pay drivers to do FP sessions, why not base it solely on superlicense points? Why the arbitrary number of six F2 events?

Revisions to the Formula One super licence rules will make it harder for drivers who have not participated in Formula Two to take part in practice sessions.

From the 2018 F1 season new free practice super licences will only be issued to drivers who have done either six Formula Two events or gathered 25 superlicence points during the previous three years.

Thoughts? It seems awfully pointless to me. If they want to restrict the ability of pay drivers to do FP sessions, why not base it solely on superlicense points? Why the arbitrary number of six F2 events?

Well if you ask me, the possibility to obtain the FP licence by having done six F2 events actually seems designed for, instead of against, pay drivers. Gelael would qualify (if he didn't have one already), for example, despite not having anything close to the needed 25 points.

Still think it's a rubbish idea. This does not ensure that only good drivers will drive F1 cars. By definition then it is pointless.

Well if you ask me, the possibility to obtain the FP licence by having done six F2 events actually seems designed for, instead of against, pay drivers. Gelael would qualify (if he didn't have one already), for example, despite not having anything close to the needed 25 points.

Still think it's a rubbish idea. This does not ensure that only good drivers will drive F1 cars. By definition then it is pointless.

Previously I believe anyone could do an FP session provided a team agreed to run them, so it is somewhat more restricted.

A cynical person might note that it doesn't do anything to restrict pay drivers... but it does make sure that if a pay driver wants to run in FP, he must have paid the FIA by taking part in their F2 series.

Revisions to the Formula One super licence rules will make it harder for drivers who have not participated in Formula Two to take part in practice sessions.

From the 2018 F1 season new free practice super licences will only be issued to drivers who have done either six Formula Two events or gathered 25 superlicence points during the previous three years.

Thoughts? It seems awfully pointless to me. If they want to restrict the ability of pay drivers to do FP sessions, why not base it solely on superlicense points? Why the arbitrary number of six F2 events?

Well if you ask me, the possibility to obtain the FP licence by having done six F2 events actually seems designed for, instead of against, pay drivers. Gelael would qualify (if he didn't have one already), for example, despite not having anything close to the needed 25 points.

Still think it's a rubbish idea. This does not ensure that only good drivers will drive F1 cars. By definition then it is pointless.

Revisions to the Formula One super licence rules will make it harder for drivers who have not participated in Formula Two to take part in practice sessions.

From the 2018 F1 season new free practice super licences will only be issued to drivers who have done either six Formula Two events or gathered 25 superlicence points during the previous three years.

Thoughts? It seems awfully pointless to me. If they want to restrict the ability of pay drivers to do FP sessions, why not base it solely on superlicense points? Why the arbitrary number of six F2 events?

Any system that would have restricted the like's of Russell from completing a mid season test but welcomes Gelael with open arms is clearly not setup for sporting reasons.

Any system that would have restricted the like's of Russell from completing a mid season test but welcomes Gelael with open arms is clearly not setup for sporting reasons.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I believe Russell would have been eligible for an FP session anyway: within the last three years he had 3rd position in European F3 (20 points) from 2016 and 6th position in European F3 (6 points) from 2015, for a total of 26 points. It is in fact pretty easy to accumulate 25 points over the rolling three-year period assuming a driver is competitive in any accredited FIA series.

Any system that would have restricted the like's of Russell from completing a mid season test but welcomes Gelael with open arms is clearly not setup for sporting reasons.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I believe Russell would have been eligible for an FP session anyway: within the last three years he had 3rd position in European F3 (20 points) from 2016 and 6th position in European F3 (6 points) from 2015, for a total of 26 points. It is in fact pretty easy to accumulate 25 points over the rolling three-year period assuming a driver is competitive in any accredited FIA series.

Well if you ask me, the possibility to obtain the FP licence by having done six F2 events actually seems designed for, instead of against, pay drivers. Gelael would qualify (if he didn't have one already), for example, despite not having anything close to the needed 25 points.

Still think it's a rubbish idea. This does not ensure that only good drivers will drive F1 cars. By definition then it is pointless.

Previously I believe anyone could do an FP session provided a team agreed to run them, so it is somewhat more restricted.

Oh it is - previously they had to do the 300km thing IIRC.But the thing is that it seems like a very two-faced implementation, and intentionally so: while they try to act like they did this to ensure quality drivers will do the drives, they added in the obvious pay-driver route.

Revisions to the Formula One super licence rules will make it harder for drivers who have not participated in Formula Two to take part in practice sessions.

From the 2018 F1 season new free practice super licences will only be issued to drivers who have done either six Formula Two events or gathered 25 superlicence points during the previous three years.

Thoughts? It seems awfully pointless to me. If they want to restrict the ability of pay drivers to do FP sessions, why not base it solely on superlicense points? Why the arbitrary number of six F2 events?

Ouch... They seem to be desperate to make F2 relevant. FIA should make some ranking system like in chess where they calculate an estimate of the strength of the driver, based on his or her performance versus other drivers. Speed of car should also be taken into account. Based on some mathematical formula FIA then calculates points for drivers.